Former NSW financial adviser pleads guilty

Gordon-based former financial adviser, Ezzat-Daniel Nesseim, has pleaded guilty to five criminal offences related to financial services business, Smart Financial Strategies, that he previously ran.

The offences carried penalties of up to 10 years imprisonment.

Nesseim pleaded guilty to:

  • Dishonestly providing three backdated wholesale client certificates to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) in an attempt to persuade ASIC to cease or modify its inquiries;
  • Giving false answers and information to ASIC, both under oath and in response to statutory notices, after questions were raised about these certificates;
  • Making use of evidence he knew was fabricated, including doctored emails attached to his written statement and purported witness statements from individuals, in a hearing before an ASIC delegate; and
  • Giving false testimony in a hearing before an ASIC delegate.
Related News:

Nessiem was granted conditional bail and had been committed to the Sydney District Court for sentence with the matter adjourned to the Sydney District Court for mention on 10 December, 2021.  

The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions was prosecuting this matter following a referral by ASIC.

In 2018, Nesseim was permanently banned from providing financial services. Additionally, he was also permanently banned from engaging in credit activities from 19 July, 2019, as he was found not to be a fit and proper person to engage in credit activities, the corporate regulator said.

Currently, Nesseim was the general manager of Accord Partners, a business operated by Foresight Enterprises, of which Nesseim is the sole director.

 

 

 

 




Recommended for you

Author

Comments

Comments

So did any client lose money, or recieve bad advice?

That's like asking 'Did anyone die?' when someone is charged with manslaughter.
What a silly question, the objective legal test is whether someone broke the law, which this guy clearly did.
The impact it had on others may determine the harshness or leniency of the sentence but not the issue of guilt.
Like all those silly Dover apologists who drone on and on.

Just trying to understand the context as to why ASIC were looking at him to begin with. His issues seem to be after ASIC were looking at him, by providing backdated wholesale client certificates and running with his lie, which yes he broke the law doing so.

So, here with Sterling we have a situation were people really did loss money - so who is guilty at ASIC?
It seems ASIC was made away of issue but did nothing - so it appears ASIC knew.

These four points sound like what Shipton did?

ASIC is corrupt

Add new comment